Losing a superstar is not always as devastating as people fear at the time. Two winters ago, the St. Louis Cardinals watched Albert Pujols leave for a 10-year, $240 million deal with the Los Angeles Angels. They responded by signing Carlos Beltran for two years, giving contract extensions to Yadier Molina and Adam Wainwright, and using their compensatory draft pick on Michael Wacha. Discipline sometimes works.

The Yankees are willing to give Cano $23 million or so for each of the next seven years, a $161 million package that is already too generous. That kind of deal has put the Yankees in their present state — decaying and injury-prone — and the team needs to break the cycle.

An influx of fresh talent from the farm system is the best way to start. The Yankees do not have those players, but that should not make them desperate. Desperate teams make the costliest mistakes.

Rays Manager Joe Maddon credited Ron Porterfield, the team’s head athletic trainer, for his pitchers’ durability, but Hellickson said he assumed all teams had the same kind of programs. Cashman said the pressure of New York makes the comparison unfair.

“I know they have a lot younger guys, but Pineda’s young and he just went down,” Cashman said. “I know the innings here are more stressful than the innings there, no doubt about that. Throwing 100 pitches in New York versus 100 pitches in Tampa are two different stresses. The stress level’s radically different on each pitch.”

Maddon said Cashman’s theory was worth considering. In a cosmic way, he could have added, the Rays deserve a benefit from playing before small crowds in an outdated home ballpark. In any case, Maddon said, the starters are essential to their model.

“Without that pitching, all the other wonderful stuff that we are, I don’t think really works nearly as effectively,” Maddon said. “It all starts with the starting pitching. That particular group and that part of our team really permits us to do all the other things well.”

It turns out the Yankees are not obliged to sign a player just because he happens to be a free agent who would fill a need. They won 97 games last season, the most in the league, before their first-round playoff loss. They can give it another try with these players and go back on the market next winter, when the free-agent starters should be much more appealing.

Cole Hamels and Matt Cain, All-Stars younger than 30 with strong postseason pedigrees, are unsigned past this season. Either would make more sense for the Yankees, in the long term, than [C.J.] Wilson or the other top starters on this winter’s market.

…What they are doing is planning ahead, a strategy that fits Hal Steinbrenner much better than it ever did his impatient father, George. Incentives in the new collective bargaining agreement would essentially reward the Yankees for reducing their payroll to $189 million by 2014. By then, Burnett, Mariano Rivera, Rafael Soriano and Nick Swisher will be off the payroll, which has exceeded $200 million in each of the last four years.

At the moment, the Yankees owe just over $80 million to Sabathia, Alex Rodriguez, Mark Teixeira and Derek Jeter for 2014. That leaves a lot of room for marquee talent, some of which is already in pinstripes.

This is all so sensible, though it feels odd on some level, a George-less Yankee team, one that exercises caution. Part of me is waiting for someone there to stop making sense–another Soriano maybe? In the meantime, they are being very Dude-like about it. Go figure.

Is there a better baseball writer in the country than Tyler Kepner? And I’m not just talking about newspapers. If so, please let me know because I’m missing something special. Kepner covered the Mets beat and then the Yankees beat for the New York Times before becoming the paper’s general baseball writer/columnist. His work features measured, even-handed analysis, good reporting, and, oh yeah, the guy can actually write. He’s just getting better and better. I got to thinking about him when I opened the sports section of the Times this morning. There are few sports writers than have all of Kepner’s skills these days and I, for one, am grateful to have him on the scene.

Only five players in major league history have had 1,500 hits and 250 homers, while hitting .310 or better, through their age-28 season. They are Jimmie Foxx, Mel Ott, Hank Aaron, Albert Pujols and Cabrera.

That is heady company, but Cabrera said he did not think much about his place in history.

“It’s too early,” he said Friday night after the first victory of a three-game sweep over the Cleveland Indians. “You never know what’s going to happen tomorrow or next month or next year.”

The man is a monster talent.

[Photo Credit: CBS News]

]]>http://www.bronxbanterblog.com/2011/08/23/tiger-style-2/feed/7No Country For Old Menhttp://www.bronxbanterblog.com/2011/05/17/no-country-for-old-men/
http://www.bronxbanterblog.com/2011/05/17/no-country-for-old-men/#commentsTue, 17 May 2011 13:11:29 +0000http://www.bronxbanterblog.com/?p=59003

The Yankees are a mediocre team right now and are dealing with the inevitable ugliness of their aging core. Jorge Posada is the first on the firing line, and Derek Jeter, who came to his friend’s defense, is next. Yesterday, team executives met with Jeter.

The Yankees could have publicly ignored Jeter’s all-is-well stance on Sunday. But to do so would have let his words hang there as the official record of the Yankee captain’s stance on quitting. And if the captain were to condone a player bailing on his teammates and fans … well, then what?

…They were not afraid of further angering Posada, because they knew he was wrong — and, ultimately, he knew it, too. And they were not afraid of taking on Jeter, who clearly gave up his bulletproof status when he signed his new contract last off-season.

It was all to prove a point: that a player cannot quit on his team and expect the team to pretend everything is fine. It was a teaching moment for everybody, from aspiring young players to veterans like Posada and Jeter. Someone, it turns out, actually reads those hokey signs in spring training.

Mariano Rivera, who turned 41 on Monday, has continued to defy age. Every year since turning 35, he has pitched fewer innings than he did the year before. Starting in 2004, Rivera’s innings have gone from 78 2/3 to 78 1/3 to 75 to 71 1/3 to 70 2/3 to 66 1/3 to 60.

Rivera pitches less often, but when he does pitch, he is basically as effective as always. He has stayed strong enough to dominate in the postseason, allowing just one run in 28 innings over the Yankees’ last four appearances.

…There are no comparable players to Rivera. The closest is Hoffman, the only pitcher with more career saves than Rivera’s 559. But Hoffman has had two seasons with an earned run average less than 2.00; Rivera has had 10. Rivera has logged more innings in fewer games, and the workload of roughly two extra seasons across all those Octobers.

Okay, we can now go back to fretting about Derek Jeter, Andy Pettitte and Cliff Lee (for the record, I say the Yanks start the season with all three–four, including Rivera–on the roster).

We know the old cliche–heck, when it comes to sports and sports writing, sometimes everything feels like a cliche–”He pitched just well enough to win,” or “He pitched good enough to lose.” Last night, Johan Santana, vexed by bad luck on a bad team, pitched just good enough to lose. Again. Meanwhile, CC Sabathia, a good pitcher on a good team, pitched poorly, but well enough to keep his team in the game.

Mike Mussina used to say that the best pitchers win half their starts. Mussina did that almost precisely over 18 seasons, winning 270 of his 536 career starts. Mussina understood the finicky role luck plays in wins and losses. But he also knew that, over time, a pitcher’s luck tends to even out. He deserved 270 victories, and that is what he got.

When the smoke cleared–presumably from all the fireworks that explode after a White Sox hits a home run–the Yanks survived a wild night of offense, 12-9. A good thing, as the Rays edged-out the Red Sox. Once again, the Yanks and Rays are tied for first place.

]]>http://www.bronxbanterblog.com/2010/08/29/lucky-be-a-lady-late-edition/feed/4Sparkle Like a Diamondhttp://www.bronxbanterblog.com/2010/06/25/sparkle-like-a-diamond-2/
http://www.bronxbanterblog.com/2010/06/25/sparkle-like-a-diamond-2/#commentsFri, 25 Jun 2010 12:54:21 +0000http://www.bronxbanterblog.com/?p=36638Tyler Kepner on the one and only, Vin Scully.

“When you see a player every day, you really get a feel for him,” Angels Manager Mike Scioscia said. “At times, you’re maybe a little disappointed in what a player brings and you thought it was a little different package. With Bobby, it’s been nothing but exclamation points.”

]]>http://www.bronxbanterblog.com/2009/10/14/b-bobby/feed/147Yankee Panky: VORP for MVPhttp://www.bronxbanterblog.com/2009/08/25/yankee-panky-vorp-for-mvp/
http://www.bronxbanterblog.com/2009/08/25/yankee-panky-vorp-for-mvp/#commentsTue, 25 Aug 2009 14:17:02 +0000http://www.bronxbanterblog.com/?p=23156The word “value” has numerous definitions and interpretations. The noun form, per dictionary.com, has 15 listed meanings. The first several apply to some kind of monetary distinction.

But if we’re looking at value in terms of a baseball player and a certain annual regular season award that’s handed out in November, we need to looking at the adjective, or maybe even the verb. The best definition of the three verb lines that apply here: “to consider with respect to worth, excellence, usefulness, or importance.”

Because of the way the MVP vote is constructed, the discussion surrounding the debate comes down to a subjective analysis of who should be considered the most worthy, excellent, useful, and/or important player in the league. The miracle of modern technology has made taken the level of debate to new heights. Please to enjoy, for example, Tyler Kepner’s tweet on August 14, moments after Mark Teixeira’s tiebreaking home run at Safeco Field:

“By the way, this is probably obvious by now, but Teixeira’s the AL MVP. ‘No question,’ as Joe Torre would say.”

The statements themselves seemed innocuous. They were an impulse reaction to a great moment among many that Tex, ye of the 8-year, $180 million contract, has provided in Year 1 of the megadeal. That was until you followed the thread to catch the jibes about Tex’s negative Ultimate Zone Rating (UZR) and the running joke it’s become, and scoured the Net to read criticisms from Rob Neyer, Joe Posnanski, and my esteemed former colleague Steven Goldman – although Goldman’s retort wasn’t immediately directed at Kepner.

The criticisms of Kepner, save for broader strokes from Goldman and JoePos in SI, read like they traded in the horses that were driving the Joe Mauer Bandwagon for rocket fuel.

Put bluntly, it was an all-out Internet war with Neyer wielding a sabermetric sword (yes, pun intended), Pos casting spells with his wizarding words, and Kepner responding with a gun that instead of bullets, fired the stick with the flag that reads, “BANG!”

What inspired this particular post? An essentially meaningless home run, hit well after midnight (back in New York). I mean, I’m sorry, but the Yankees aren’t exactly in the middle of a pennant race anymore. They’ve got a huge lead over the second-place Red Sox. And if the Red Sox should somehow mount a late charge, the Yankees have a huger lead over the Rangers for that other postseason berth. … Joe Mauer currently leads the American League in batting average, on-base percentage, and slugging percentage. I don’t suppose anyone’s forgotten this yet, but he’s a catcher. Teixeira’s a first baseman. Are we really supposed to go for a power-hitting first baseman again, even when there’s a better-hitting catcher playing for a competitive team?” Neyer went on to say that he’s worried the writers are conspiring to rob Mauer of what should be a third MVP award for him.

He continued his fact-based rant 48 hours later, saying, “You know what? Let’s just be honest. The argument for Teixeira is an argument for doing it the way it’s always been done. Teixeira is just another big RBI guy on a team with a great record. If he were a Twin and Mauer were a Yankee, Teixeira would hardly be an afterthought. Some of you are OK with that. I’m not.”

Six days later, Neyer felt compelled to write about convincing Pete Abe on Super Joe. The goal, apparently, is to not only campaign for Mauer for MVP, but to have him win unanimously.

Look, could you make a case for Mark Teixeira over Joe Mauer? Well, you could make a case for anything. You could say that Mauer missed the first month of the season — so Teixeira has about 120 more plate appearances. You could say that the Yankees are going to the playoffs and the Twins are not unless they make a late season rush that looks more and more unlikely. But it sure seems to me that we need to start jabbing holes in this Teixeira MVP thing before it becomes a fait accompli.

Joe Mauer is having a much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much better season than Mark Teixeira. I’m not sure I put enough muches in there. Mauer is on pace to win his THIRD batting title as a catcher — and no other American League catcher has ever won even one. He leads the league in on-base percentage AND slugging percentage, the two most important stats going, and the only catcher to ever do that in baseball history was … oh, wait, nobody. He throws out base runners and hits .395 with runners in scoring position (hits .457 with runners in scoring position and two outs) and even runs the bases well.

And three days later, JoePos had this to offer: “Not to slam this MVP thing again, but we do realize that even forgetting all those kooky ‘advanced stats’ that seem to annoy people, even with Mauer missing a month of the season with injury — Mauer has now scored as many runs at Teixeira and he’s only 13 RBIs behind, and his batting average is 95 points higher. We do realize that the last seven days, while the Twins have been in desperate need of victories (and not getting many), Mauer is hitting .552 with three home runs and a .931 slugging percentage. And he’s probably the Gold Glove catcher.”

Unless Teixeira leads the league in home runs by a significant margin, or Mauer cools dramatically, it’s hard to see him emerging from the pack when his season is unremarkable by the standards of his position. Of the last 60 awards (both leagues), first basemen won only 11 times. No first baseman won without hitting .300 (I am treating the 1979 Keith Hernandez/Willie Stargell split like an honorary Academy Award for Pops). All but one, Mo Vaughn in 1995, were well over the .300 mark. An average of those 11 seasons comes to roughly .333/.428/.624, and many of them, like Don Mattingly and Keith Hernandez, both included in the 11, were fine defenders as well. Teixeira’s not having that kind of season.

Some harsh words in there. Kepner, following Posnanski’s initial commentary, issued a rebuttal at Bats, noting that “obvious” was a poor choice of words in his Tweet. In a way, he invited the storm and I thought he handled himself admirably among some respected, admired and talented industry heavyweights. I thought the degree to which he was made to be the piñata for “traditional baseball opinions” was a bit extreme. He’s entitled to his opinion, and opinions are subjective, just like the MVP vote.

As much as I like and respect Kepner, and as much as a fan of Mark Teixeira as I am, going back to seeing him play at Georgia Tech 10 years ago, I have to say that while he’s certainly a valuable piece to the lineup, he’s not the MVP. You can equate his value to many things, mainly 1) Derek Jeter and Johnny Damon hitting in front of him and getting on base 38 percent of the time, and 2) Alex Rodriguez protecting him in the cleanup spot.

Which brings us back to the original definition of value. Can it be quantified? If so, can we put that quantification to good use? Look no further than the MVP race of 2006, when Justin Morneau edged Jeter – robbed, really – of the award. When I heard the news of Morneau’s victory, I joked with Goldman that the voting error was so egregious that the privilege should be revoked from the writers and determined solely by Baseball Prospectus’s VORP (Value Over Replacement Player) statistic. I don’t know how VORP is calculated and don’t pretend to. What I know is that VORP is defined as “the number of runs contributed beyond what a replacement-level player at the same position would contribute if given the same percentage of team plate appearances.” VORP scores do not consider defense.

Simple enough, right?

Jeter led the American League in VORP in ‘06, while the winner of the award, Minnesota first baseman Justin Morneau, was 13th. Morneau also scored 21 fewer runs than Jeter, walked 16 fewer times, hit 22 points lower and had an on-base percentage a full 42 points lower.

The other year Jeter was robbed – 1999 – was perhaps an even greater injustice. Jeter finished sixth in the voting on a team that went on to win the World Series. Again, Jeter led the league in VORP. The writers’ MVP, Pudge Rodriguez, was 11th.

Forgetting VORP for a second, let’s take a more traditional look at the 1999 seasons of Pudge and Jeter:

For all the Jeter haters who believe the opinions of him are largely based on intangibles, check those numbers again. Jeter had a more complete offensive season in 2006 than Morneau while playing a more demanding defensive position. Was it an historic season for a shortstop? Hardly. But outside of the historic context, doesn’t that argument sound similar to the one being made in favor of Mauer now? Ten years ago, outside of the physically demanding defensive position argument, couldn’t we make the same case for Jeter over Pudge?

Why is all this pertinent? If we’re going to talk VORP and apply it to the MVP race, then Mauer is this year’s winner, hands down. Mauer is the league leader in the category by almost 23 points over Tampa Bay’s Jason Bartlett, and if you need other reasons, consult the Kansas City law firm of Posnanski and Neyer. Those who argue Jeter over Tex to be in the discussion are right, by VORP. Jeter is fourth while Tex is 14th.

Only four MVP winners this decade have also led the league in VORP. Three of them were Alex Rodriguez in 2003, ’05 and ’07. Vlad Guerrero in ’04 was the other. Maybe it’s time the community as a whole looked at the Value Over Replacement Player item as a legitimate means of determining the Most Valuable Player award. Not only will it give legitimacy to the nerds – and I say that affectionately – it will end the ridiculous subjective back-and-forth arguments that only spawn more arguments year after year.

If the vote truly is what Neyer believes, an RBI-based award, then give it to Morneau again and anger the entire baseball fan populace.

But ask yourself: what’s the value in that?

]]>http://www.bronxbanterblog.com/2009/08/25/yankee-panky-vorp-for-mvp/feed/37Yankee Panky Q&A: Newspapers and the People Who Love Themhttp://www.bronxbanterblog.com/2009/07/16/yankee-panky-qa-newspapers-and-the-people-who-love-them/
http://www.bronxbanterblog.com/2009/07/16/yankee-panky-qa-newspapers-and-the-people-who-love-them/#commentsThu, 16 Jul 2009 14:23:44 +0000http://www.bronxbanterblog.com/?p=21642Over the last ten months I’ve mentioned in this space numerous statistics on job losses and general cutbacks in the newspaper industry. As sites like Newspaper Death Watch continue to gain traction, and papers nationwide continue to scale back their sports operations and travel budgets, it’s important to get a feel for where the industry is for the people in the trenches, past and present.

Former longtime Yankees beat man and YESNetwork.com colleague Phil Pepe agreed, but limited his answer more specifically to baseball coverage.

“This is a problem that has been ongoing for a few years and seemed to have escalated during the current economic crisis,” he said. “Sad to admit it, but today because of the blanket coverage from radio, television and the Internet, newspapers are not as vital to the game’s well-being as they once were.”

With all that in mind, I still couldn’t help thinking that additional opinions needed to be sought. So I took the the e-mails and queried New York Times Yankees beat reporter Tyler Kepner, Gertrude Ederle biographer and editor of the Greatest American Sports Writing Series, Glenn Stout, Kansas City Star columnist and uber-blogger Joe Posnanski, Pepe and another of my ex-YES men, Al Iannazzone, who covers the New Jersey Nets for The Bergen Record.

As you’ll see, I asked each writer the same basic set of questions, including one standout from Banterer YankeeMama. The e-mails were exchanged over the course of several days in late April, hence the reason some of the material in the answers may seem dated.

I was impressed with everyone’s candor and genuine love for the craft of writing, and newspapers’ place — even now — as an outlet for that voice. Each recognized how technology has influenced the industry, and how a happy medium must be forged for bloggers, beat writers, newspapers and e-media to coexist. Money matters, however, skew the discussion.

On the topic of travel, Iannazzone said, “It’s mostly West Coast games because you’re not going to get them in the paper anyway. So it’s a way to save money wisely, I guess.” There were certain elements of the conversation that due to the sensitivity of the issue, Iannazzone would not divulge, but he did offer this nugget: “I know I traveled less this year than in my five years on the Nets.”

The individual Q&A’s are highlighted below:

TYLER KEPNER and PHIL PEPEWeiss: the Times cutting sections and looking for ways to boost revenue, have their been cuts in terms of writer representation / travel to games?

Kepner: Not at all. At least not yet. I would guess that we sent more writers to more WBC sites than any other newspaper, and our manpower in spring training and the first couple of weeks of the regular season has not been decreased at all.

Weiss: You post quite frequently to Bats, and you bring some real interesting nuggets to that format. Do you find the blog format beneficial to your overall coverage, or a burden?

Kepner: It definitely enhances our coverage, no question about it. Yesterday, for example, I spoke with Alex Rodriguez’s surgeon around 11 a.m. Within an hour and a half, I had a 500-word story posted online under our blog heading. It
appeared in the early editions of the actual newspaper but dropped out for the final editions when the daily report from the game (Burnett’s dominance, Nady’s injury, etc.) took its place. Without the blog, I might have been upset by that. But knowing there are space limitations in the paper makes it valuable to be able to write things for cyberspace, where of course there
are no space limitations.

Our format is great because it allows you the flexibility to write almost anything you want, in any kind of voice. I almost never post on my days off. But on the days I’m working, if I don’t have at least one thought or observation or insight worthy of putting up on the blog (besides what is going in the actual paper), something’s probably wrong.

We’re also shifting more toward a hybrid blog/notebook, so items that before would appear under the heading of “Yankees Notebook” or “Mets Notebook” will now be presented as blog posts and then spun off into the actual newspaper when space allows.

Weiss: As more newspapers fold or go solely to an online format, how is the BBWAA accounting for this drastic shift?

Kepner: As a body, we’ve taken a more open mind to allowing writers from websites to have or retain BBWAA membership. It’s obvious that some of the best writers in the business are guys like Jayson Stark (espn.com), Gordon Edes (Yahoo), and many, many others, whose work appears online and not in print. Those writers are essentially doing their job the same way newspaper writers do — that is, depending on their access to games. It’s more a function of how the mechanics a writer needs to do his or her job than the publication it is for. (MLB.com writers are an exception; they have many tremendous journalists, but as an extension of Major League Baseball, they have not been approved as BBWAA members.)

Pepe: I can’t speak for the BBWAA because my involvement is with the New York chapter only and, frankly, I haven’t seen much of a change around here. The local papers, with a few minor exceptions, still cover the teams in full force as they always have, so I am not missing any coverage. In fact, I counted 12 people from the Daily News who were in Florida at one time another for spring training and/or the World Baseball Classic, so that paper must not be hurting.

I don’t get to the ballparks these days so I have not witnessed the missing members in the press box that was alluded to in the piece. But I have heard the alarming news about papers scaling back coverage (the Detroit News is printing three times per week, the Star Ledger is picking up game stories from the Daily News, etc) or going out of business (the Rocky Mountain News, no newspaper in San FRancisco, etc).

As for the NY Chapter, I have seen no reduction in our membership. We have been able to replenish our rolls with Japanese writers and dot.coms, so the purge has really not hit us yet. But I will admit the future is bleak. I remember when press coverage was so important, the Knicks, Rangers, Jets (Titans) would pay the writers’ expenses to have them cover on the road. I think the Yankees, Giants and Dodgers did the same in the early days, but if they did it was before my time.

Weiss (to Kepner): And this question from a BB reader, on a similar note … Journalism is in danger of becoming fragmented if solely in a web-based form. How can journalism stay alive online while maintaining the integrity of the newspaper as a viable form of spreading a wealth of information? Will we all own Kindles? Are we destined to become as fragmented as an iTune? Or just plain ignorant?

Kepner: I’m not really sure how to answer that. I’m probably naïve, but I know that for lots of people there’s a real value in having an actual paper as opposed to an online-only product. I suppose we’re headed in that direction if ad
revenue continues to fall, but I can’t predict what will happen. I think the most important thing is trusting the credibility of what you are reading. That’s the vital difference between a beat writer and someone who does not travel with a team and take advantage of the access we have. Both types of writers have worthwhile things to say. But, to me, following the work of writer who’s around the team all the time (and does the job well, of course) is the best way for a fan to know what’s really going on — and why.

________________________________________________________

GLENN STOUT

Weiss: What do you see as the major cause for newspapers shuttering their operations: the economy or the prevalence and immediate availability of information on the Internet?

Stout: I don’t think it’s an either/or question — you can’t separate the two, although I would argue that changing economic expectations in the newspaper industry, in advance of the recent world wide economic downturn, which has escalated the problem dramatically, had more to do with the contraction than the immediacy of internet information, and the internet info that has hurt newspaper the most is the info they themselves provide, for free, and not so much what appears elsewhere. And by giving it away for free, there’s little reason to keep buying the cow, hence the contraction. Newspapers made a grave error in the last decade when they failed to realize, industry-wide, that anything they put on the internet for free should have been put there ONLY to drive traffic toward print –- rather than the other way around, or should not have been accessible to non-subscribers. Had that model been instituted early, we’d be accustomed to it now and this conversation wouldn’t be taking place. But they — the publishers and experts — blew it. But also understand that “contraction” has been going on for most of the last century. One hundred years ago, big cities like Boston and New York sported seven, eight, nine daily papers, all of which covered the teams, and there was also some coverage by papers from the surrounding region. That kind of saturation coverage has been dwindling for a hundred years.

Weiss: A few beat writers have mentioned that posting to Blogs give them a different forum with more freedom and allow them to provide information that won’t appear in the paper. Do you see that as a benefit?

Stout: Benefit for who? It’s benefit for the reader, but I’m not sure so much for the writer, not always. I mean, on the one hand it increases his or her exposure, but it is also an added responsibility, and more work, usually for the same pay, and can take time away from producing and researching a story for print. In general, too (and I know this is a sweeping generalization with many exceptions), many blog posts, which are increasingly taking on the brevity of tweets, are often written with more haste and less attention than work for print. I think it’s difficult to improve your craft, or craft something really lasting, in that format. I know there are writers whose work I respect a lot whose emphasis on blogs has, I think, detracted from what they do in print. But there is also some freedom in not always having to write unified, complete stories, and being able to fire off observations, anecdotes and breaking news without having to wait, and without having to worry about the format so much. There are some readers who will always prefer more crafted work, and others who just want info and data. I think it’s a tough balance for a writer, and real difficult to do both well.

Weiss: Do you see journalism becoming more fragmented?

Stout: I think fragmentation has been a reality in journalism ever since journalism has existed. Evolutionary new formats and methods of transmitting information, and the attendant influence of those changes on the field, has been a constant. Over time, journalism has always had to adapt to changes in the speed and method by which information can be distributed –- it has never remained static -– and so too now. The wisest people in the field understand and embrace that. It’s Darwinian -– adapt or die -– and always has been. When I started writing as a freelancer the industry was still in the “write it out in longhand and then type it out” stage. Had I not adapted and evolved, I wouldn’t be working today.

Weiss: Do you think newspapers cutting costs by not sending writers to road games, etc., is a disservice to hometown readers?

Stout: I think anything that constricts the direct access journalists have to their subject is a bad thing. It’s basic math -– two reporters covering a team are probably going to miss stuff that five won’t. And given the way that teams and leagues are trying to control their own information flow these days on their own ersatz journalism platforms -– think mlb.com and the MLB Network -– it’s never a good thing to be in a situation where you are dependent on the industry to self report. They will always leave things out that would otherwise be reported.

Weiss: If you were a newspaper editor, what measures would you take to combat the shifts in coverage that are taking place?

Stout: If I were king of the newspapers I would make each of them locally owned, ban chains, and then, in a sweeping edict, have them all dramatically reduce fee web content. That’s the only way for newspapers, as we have known them, to survive. But you know what? It’s too late for that. That battle is lost. So if I were a newspaper editor I think the best thing I could do would be to hire the best, most energetic and creative writing staff possible and just let them rip. Don’t overmanage and don’t over edit. I’m convinced that if given the chance the writers will always find a way, through their own creativity, to produce work people will want to read. Most assuredly the solution to industry problems will not come when being dictated from on high, or delivered by consultants.

________________________________________________________

JOE POSNANSKIWeiss: What effect has the news of the Seattle P-I going online only and the Rocky Mountain News shuttering operations had on the local papers in Kansas City, including yours? Does it make you wonder where the hammer will fall next?

Posnanski: Well, the PI and Rocky closing did not have any specific effect on the Star other than we were left very sad for those cities and for the good friends we have there. Those were both excellent newspapers. And these are tough times. Every newspaper is going through a transition right now. We’ve had a series of layoffs and various other cost-cutting measures at the Star and throughout the McClatchy chain. But I think it’s important to just try to keep going; the economic downturn has had a harsh effect on a lot of businesses, not just newspapers.

Weiss: You’re a career newspaper man and you maintain your own blog. Do you prefer one medium over the other?

Posnanski: Well, I guess I would say I much prefer newspapers because I actually get paid to write for them, unlike my blog. But beyond that, I really like writing for both mediums. I was not one of those kids who knew what I wanted to be at a young age, but ever since I figured it out I wanted to write stories. I love the daily grind of newspapers, the tight deadlines, the camaraderie, the opportunities, the access. And I love the blog writing because there are fewer rules, no limits, and no pressures. I tend to see the newspaper as a job I love, and the blog as a hobby that I probably spend too much time on.

Weiss: Has the KC Star changed its philosophy on coverage of baseball or any other sport due to either a) the economy or b) loss of revenue or c) demographic shift in readership to online?

Posnanski: Sure, I think we’ve changed our philosophy a little bit, but I don’t think in the way that most would think. We are writing more about the Royals than ever before. Sam Mellinger writes what I think is an excellent blog about the Royals called “Ball Star,” and Brad Doolittle takes a statistical approach, and for me Bob Dutton is the hardest-working and best beat guy in the country. So I think we are doing more with the Royals now than ever, and I think we will continue to do more. I know that there has been some talk in places about cutting back, maybe traveling less, etc. And I’m not smart enough to know … but best I can tell the thought at the Star is to do the opposite. Covering the Royals is something we can do better than anyone else. And I think that as times get tougher, it’s MORE important that we do that, not less.

Weiss: Do you think newspapers and print media in general are becoming obsolete? If so, is that a good thing? (If you’re an environmentalist, I know the answer is yes).

Posnanski: Well, I do care about the environment a great deal, but I also think that people might be surprised by how much life is still left in print. I know that you hear on a daily basis that print is dying, but a lot of newspapers are still making money. Many advertisers still will only advertise in print. I do think that America is shifting, and I think that printed newspapers will play a different role over the next few years. But I would not be surprised if newspapers, in one form or another, are around for a lot longer than many people seem to think.

Weiss:As more newspapers fold or go solely to an online format, how is the BBWAA accounting for this drastic shift?

Posnanski: Well, again, I don’t want to sound like I have my head buried in the sand — times are very tough for newspapers, and everyone is cutting back, and at the moment everything looks very bleak. But, you know, newspapers have been folding for a long, long time. When I was younger, it was afternoon papers folding. The Cleveland Press. The Charlotte News. The Chicago Daily Herald. Some great papers. There used to be a dozen papers in New York, and more. So we’re really going through another cycle here … and none of us know how it’s going to end up. Will there a be major city without a newspaper? Will there be a one-paper town that gets all its news online? Will newspapers simply fade away? How soon will those things happen? I don’t know. So, it’s hard to say how that will affect the BBWAA. I’m really happy the organization has opened its doors to online sites — I think that was long overdue. I mean, ESPN and Yahoo and SI.com and so on, these are giants in sports journalism now. They should not just be in the BBWAA, but they should be helping shape the future. The real question for me at this moment is not for the BBWAA but the Baseball Hall of Fame. You know, it’s the Baseball Hall of Fame that handed over voting privileges to the BBWAA — the Hall of Fame is not like the Cy Young or MVP awards which were created and are entirely run by the BBWAA. No the Hall of Fame asked the BBWAA to vote in Hall of Famers, and it has been that way since 1936, and I would say for the most part that has worked well.

Well, now I think the Hall of Fame has a bit of a crisis on its hands. Numerous great players — Mark McGwire, Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, Rafael Palmeiro, Gary Sheffield and quite a few others — have a steroid stain, and right now it appears that there is no movement in the BBWAA to vote for any of those players. And the people running the Hall of Fame is going to have to face the reality of a museum without the all-time hit leader, the all-time home run leader, perhaps the best pitcher ever, etc. Maybe they’re OK with that. Maybe they’re not. I’d keep an eye on that.

Weiss:And this question from a BB reader: Journalism is in danger of becoming fragmented if solely in a web-based form. How can journalism stay alive online while maintaining the integrity of the newspaper as a viable form of spreading a wealth of information? Will we all own Kindles? Are we destined to become as fragmented as an iTune? Or just plain ignorant?

Posnanski: Whew, deep questions all — I don’t think any of us know how this is going to shake out. That’s the real trouble right now. Newspapers are facing a double whammy now — technology is shifting AND we’re facing the worst economic downturn in decades. Those two punches coming at once make it hard to see clearly. It also makes it easy to panic. My gut feeling is that journalism will stay alive — online, in some form of print, and in whatever the next thing is — because people want journalism. People want to know the news. People want someone watching out for them. People want to be informed and entertained. I think some of that is found in blogs. I think some of that is found in books. I think some of that is found in magazines. And I do believe that there is still a market for professionals who know how to find the story and who know how to tell the story. Of course, I have to believe that. One thing I think a lot about is how fragmented we already have become as a society. We watch different shows, read different Web sites, rent different movies, listen to different music … there isn’t as much connection as there used to be with everyone in the neighborhood. It’s one of the reason I love sports so much: That’s one thing that has made it through, the one thing we do share. Maybe everyone doesn’t watch the tonight show or listen to the same morning show on the radio or even read the same newspaper. But in Kansas City, everyone still cares whether the Royals lost last night. I think that’s important.

]]>http://www.bronxbanterblog.com/2009/07/16/yankee-panky-qa-newspapers-and-the-people-who-love-them/feed/10Yankee Panky: CC, LeBron, and a Hot Stove that’s pre-heatedhttp://www.bronxbanterblog.com/2008/11/16/yankee-panky-cc-lebron-and-a-hot-stove-that%e2%80%99s-pre-heated/
http://www.bronxbanterblog.com/2008/11/16/yankee-panky-cc-lebron-and-a-hot-stove-that%e2%80%99s-pre-heated/#commentsSun, 16 Nov 2008 16:43:17 +0000http://www.bronxbanterblog.com/?p=4476Separating truth from rumor during the baseball season is difficult enough, but during the hot stove season, it’s easy to get burned if you don’t view everything you read with a skeptical eye. We know the deal: the rumor-mongering is intended to sell papers, conjure arguments on talk radio, and stir conversation and commentary on blogs like this to keep baseball relevant in a town where both NFL teams are in first place and the Knicks look like an actual professional basketball team for the first time in six years.

Speaking of rumors, we knew the Yankees, with their financial clout and now $32 million to work with (I like Cliff Corcoran’s conservative accounting), would be big players in this winter’s free agent market. The past 30 hours or so have seen one constant in the CC Sabathia Sweepstakes: the Yankees are the highest — and only — bidder to date.

Not long after our Diane Firstman gave the skinny on the landscape’s analysis of the record offer made to the 6-foot-7, 290-pound southpaw, which included a quote from a Yankees official who welcomed the Mets’ inclusion in the mix, Newsday’s David Lennon reported that the Mets put the XX on CC. Joel Sherman wasn’t as definitive in this blog post, but he did not discount the Mets as a player, if for no other reason than to jack up the price for the Yankees.

What no one needs to see as it relates to CC Sabathia are stories like this. LeBron James is a Yankee fan. He’s friends with Sabathia, who until mid-summer spent his entire career in Cleveland. But do we, and should we, care what James has to say on this issue? In James’ defense, I believe this is more of an indictment of the Cleveland reporter who felt compelled to ask the question more than it is on James, who could face a similar free-agent dilemma next summer. James could opt out of the remaining two years of his contract in July and go to the highest bidder, which according to the aforementioned report, is expected to be either the Knicks or the New Jersey Nets. But if you’re the Cleveland scribe, why create a mess now? Haven’t those fans suffered for long enough? As a former reporter, I’m embarrassed. Maybe I’d have used that question as an icebreaker for an off-the-record situation, but that’s it. No way do you go to press with that.

As for additional reporting, some interesting notes from Yankees Hot Stove, which aired Thursday night on YES (video clips available at YESNetwork.com):

• On the topic of Sabathia, Times beat man Tyler Kepner intimated that CC would be leaving tens of millions on the table if he rejected the Yankees to sign with either the Angels or Giants. The Post’s Kevin Kernan countered that if Sabathia does shun the extra cash, he wouldn’t be making too many friends within the MLBPA.

My take: I can’t see the union blocking a deal based on money unless it involves Alex Rodriguez.

• Kernan praised the fact that Sabathia talks to the media on the day he pitches.

My take: The Yankees have had a long-standing rule preventing starting pitchers from speaking to the press on the day before their scheduled starts and before the game on the day of, so I don’t know if he’d be able to continue this practice if he signed with the Yanks.

• Kepner suggested that the acquisition of Nick Swisher does not prevent the Yankees from being players in the Mark Teixeira bonanza. Unlike Sherman, who in the blog linked above opined that in order to protect payroll, the Yankees would not sign both Sabathia and Teixeira this offseason, Kepner said deep pockets could, and should, put the Yankees in the lead for Teixeira.

“They (the Yankees) gave a seven-year deal to Jason Giambi, who had a lot more negatives going into that deal than Teixeira … and Giambi was very productive in five of those seven years,” Kepner said.

Kepner thinks big bucks (no whammys), and seven or eight years, will do it. A 10-year, $200 million offer, “I wouldn’t do it,” Kepner said.

My take: I’ve liked Big Tex ever since I saw him as a freshman third baseman at Georgia Tech. Signing him allows the Yankees to deal Xavier Nady, Johnny Damon, or Hideki Matsui, leave Bob K. Abreu alone, and make Nick Swisher the everyday right or left fielder. Oh by the way, doing that makes the Yankees younger in the outfield also. With Jeter turning 35 next year, A-Rod turning 34, and Jorge Posada turning 38, it’s time for the Yankees to consider who can and will be the building blocks of the franchise for the next several years. Teixeira is worth it, and so is Sabathia.

• Kepner and Kernan agreed that Brett Gardner should be the starting center fielder next year.

My take: Four years ago, a similar discussion involving a young, scrappy, light-hitting potential starting center fielder was had. For several weeks, Brian Cashman said Bubba Crosby would be the starting center fielder in 2005. What did the Yankees do? They signed Johnny Damon, then 32 years old, to a four-year, $52 million deal shortly before Christmas. With all the talk surrounding Mike Cameron and the strange support in the local media regarding his possible acquisition — it’s mainly because of his .986 career fielding in center — I don’t see Gardner being anything more than a fourth or fifth outfielder in ’09. An archived piece from Filip Bondy of the Daily News, written as a reaction to Brian Cashman’s contract extension, provides more insight.

• A consensus between Kepner and Kernan: Phil Coke should be in the bullpen, giving the Yankees a formidable lefty duo with Damaso Marte.

My take: It’s the smart thing to do. Now if only there were some righties not named Rivera who could reliably get batters out.

Some other notes …

• Ken Rosenthal reports that with the Braves now out of the mix for Jake Peavy, the Yankees could be a possibility. MLB.com picked up on the story as well.

QUOTE OF THE WEEK
“I look back at those four years with the Yankees, it was exhausting. But if I was healthy, no doubt about it, the team would have benefited and I would have benefited.”— Carl Pavano, from the 11/12 edition of the Palm Beach Post